Like all my colleagues in the SSPX, I certainly would like, as I have done so far, to obey my superiors, but in the current case, I have serious doubts that the Common Good would be served.

A. Bishop Fellay gives as the reason for his decision to go forward with an agreement with Rome, in the introduction 'Word of the Superior General' in "Cor Unum" March 2012): p.8 "We can no longer believe that this is a 'steamroller' ..." but the steamroller is still moving forward: recent evidence is the letter of Mgr. Pozzo to Father Laguérie: IPB (Institute of the Good Shepherd) must accept the New Mass (for priests who are members; and they do not have the Tridentine Mass as their "own rite"), they must not criticize Vatican II so much and they must teach the new catechism in their seminary.

p.6-7: the younger clergy is open to Tradition, we could catch them more easily:

considerations: but there is a long way to go: they have little formation, they have suffered a deep deformation and they are difficult to convert completely (proof, the contact with young priests I've had recently: they are of good faith, I hope, and have admiration for tradition, but are steeped in error).

B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX:

14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo through, obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer."

C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

D Even if Mgr. Fellay were right, then a good leader still does not advance until he has checked that he is being followed by a good majority: that is not the case now ... a very large part do not agree with him including three bishops.

E Rules of 'Discernment of Spirits': This decision causes confusion and disagreement within the SSPX. It's a bad sign.

F After this pope, who is 85 years old, there will be another; the postconciliar Hegelian pendulum will probably swing to the other side: progressivism. And then who will protect us?

F Bishop Fellay has said repeatedly that the Pope is so good and well intentioned towards tradition. Apart from the fact that this is a subjective argument and therefore weak, it is especially dangerous. The current pope, favouring tradition but not condemning progressivism (see list below *), operates in effect as a perfect modernist:

"Nr.36 ... So let us say, summing up modernist thought, that an evolution results from the conflict of two forces, one pushing for progress, while the other tends to conservatism. The conservative force in the Church, it is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority (A). This is so in law and fact: in law, because the defence of tradition is like a natural instinct of authority, in fact, because, hovering over the contingencies of life, authority does not feel, or very little, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, is one that meets the needs, and ferments in individual consciences, and especially in those who are in more intimate contact with life. You can clearly see here, Venerable Brethren, this pernicious doctrine that wants to make the laity, a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is a sort of compromise and agreement between the conservative and the progressive force that gradual changes and progress is made (B) ..."

Conclusion: According to the modernists is quite normal that the Pope supports Tradition.See text in bold (A) – IN ORDER TO advance modernist trends in the Church: see bold text above (B).This is evident in the life of the present Pope. As a theologian, Josef Ratzinger was in the "progressive party" neo modernist, and now, as authority (Prefect and then Pope) he must needs promote tradition, this modernist is acting according to the rule above. Indeed, the pope has not converted to Tradition, as he has reissued all his works from when he was an erroneous theologian when he was elected pope without correcting them and he has just refused our arguments for Tradition in the theological discussions. He favours Tradition, only to advance his Hegelian progress. Absit!

The pope has not converted: the list of facts that prove it is long:

21.10.2007: Interfaith Meeting of Naples;28.04.2008: Visit to the Synagogue of New York;15.07.2008: World Youth Day Sydney with its liturgy "enculturated" and pagan rituals;12.05.2009: Visit to the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem;12.05.2009: Jewish Ritual at the Wailing Wall;17.01.2010: Visit to the Synagogue of Rome;14.03.2010: Active participation in the Lutheran worship in Rome;01.05.2011: Beatification of John Paul II;27.10.2011: Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi;2012: theological discussions demonstrate the contradiction between the thoughts of Rome and Tradition.

Remember also:

Common prayer with the imams in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on 30 November 2006his cordial meeting with a "woman priest" Anglican Westminster Abbey 17 September 2010,

The invitation to the Vatican of a homosexual group called "Gay Circus" December 15, 2010, who performed before him a choreography of perverts.

Benedict refused to kiss the crucifix on Good Friday, during the liturgy of the "adoration" of the cross, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (we do not know what will happen in 2012).

"L'Osservatore Romano" (French) No. 3229 of March 29, 2012, p.17: Pope Benedict XVI in his homily at the Mass on Revolution Square in Havana (Cuba), 28-03, was still advocating religious freedom for all "believers" who "nourish the hope for a better world" (...) "When the Church emphasizes this right (religious freedom), it does not claim any privilege for itself."

Bishop Fellay in the same way. said that the solution proposed by Rome is not a trap (letters to the bishops p.3), but there is evidence to the contrary:

Second proof: Admissions

2001: A legal maxim says that "an admission is proof."

In two interviews, the "Il Giornale" and the "Avvenire" - on the occasion of the presentation of his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" - Cardinal Ratzinger argued that there was still a long way to go towards an agreement , and he attributed the blame for the delay in the ending of the discussions from the side of the Society.

See DICI No. 2 of April 6, 2001, which gives the text of an interview with Cardinal R. to the Italian newspaper "Il Giornale" Monday, April 3, 2001. I give only the gist of the text:

1) Cardinal Ratzinger said about the SSPX: "The road is still long. I must say there is a strong hardening in the Lefebvrist movement, I notice that they are turned in on themselves, and this makes problematic the reconciliation process, at least in the short term."

"The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have resented the post-conciliar liturgical reform (...)" ...

2) Question of IG: "What steps have the Lefebvrists to make to get closer to the Holy See?"

Cardinal Ratzinger replied: "Recognizing that the liturgy of the Council is still the same liturgy of the Church, it is not something else. Recognize that the church renovated by the Council is not another Church, but is still the same Church that lives and grows."

The goal of negotiations is that we accept the NOM, post conciliar liturgy, and the new ecclesiology ("subsists in" etc..). The aim is downright bad. Numquam possumus.

3) Question of IG: "What can we do to meet them?"

Cardinal Ratzinger's response:

"We must do our best to attract these brothers and sisters, to give them the confidence they have lost. Inside the church a wound heals better: if the confrontation takes place outside, we shall grow further apart."

"We must recognize that by the traditional liturgy of Saint Pius V, they are still inside the common church tradition. We must be generous to allow that the common Christian tradition is expressed in different ritual forms. It is a difficult path of reconciliation, as often happens in a family dispute. We need to provide a starting point in the reconciliation process."

The means to achieve the goal is by means of generosity. Being generous, that is to say: open your heart, recognise, allow, provide a starting point, the reconciliation process.

In practice: the creation of an apostolic administration etc. .. are the generous practical means to attain the goal.

Conclusion: Frankly, to try to achieve a bad goal (this goal is confessed: to make us accept the errors of Vatican II) by means of generosity, this is called a manoeuver.

At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre had already seen this with the Fraternity of St. Peter, he gave them ten years (of "generosity")

Shame that Campos etc. .. have fallen into this same trap. In the IPB it seems already after 5 years ..

3rd Ad confirmandum: another confession of Pope Benedict XVI, "the Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance"

September 12, 2008, on the plane that took him to France, Benedict XVI publicly confirmed its intention: "the Motu Proprio ("Summorum Pontificorum" of July 7, 2007) is simply an act of tolerance" .. "There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican II and the old".... "On their side friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, new prefaces of the liturgy, etc. ..... In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times. Thank you." Source: Zenit ZF08091310 - 13-09-2008: http://www.zenit.org/article-18792?l=french

4th Lourdes September 14, 2008 before all the bishops of France,

Benedict-Ratzinger has continued to clarify his thoughts, before the bishops of France, following the same guiding principle: that of the absorption of traditionalist splinter group within the conciliar church, in the name of the same tolerance "... I was led to state in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions for exercise of this office, regarding the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962), that of Pope Paul VI (1970). I know your difficulties, but I do not doubt that you can achieve in reasonable time, satisfactory solutions for all so that the seamless tunic of Christ be not further torn ... Let us therefore always be servants of unity!

Let's be careful. This is the "unity in Vatican II ...": there are two masses, because there are two groups, the conflict should lead to progress and evolution (nr cfr.Pascendi 36 above): the reform of the reform, "the Mass of St. Thesis [synthesis]" (that is to say, according to Hegel, the conflict between a useful and necessary thesis and an antithesis produces a "synthesis" that makes progress and evolves).

"Personally, I am mistrustful ... I've always had a feeling of distrust and I must admit I've always thought that all they do is to get us to accept the Council and to accept the post-conciliar reforms"(Lefebvre, 1988).

5th We will not do what we want

Proof: 08/06/2012 Dici:

DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you have indicated in recent statements. .. Are you willing to accept that future works are possible only with the permission of the bishop in the dioceses where the Society of St. Pius X is not currently present?Mgr: ".... It remains true - as is the law of the Church - that to open a new chapel or found a work, it would be necessary to have permission from the local ordinary. We have of course presented in Rome how our current situation was difficult in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? ..."

6th note:

Since the common good is at stake (the unity of the Society, preserving of the deposit of faith), it seems useful to ask some fundamental principles on this subject:

1) Quote "Cor Unum" nr 85, page 26:

"Motions [and decisions] of the General Chapter - I.1. Relations with Rome"

"If an agreement with the Holy See were seriously considered, an extraordinary general chapter would be convened to address the issue."

2) Quote of Raoul Naz "Treaty of Canon Law", T 1, nr 816, "Chapters":

"General Chapter has more power than the superior general.It can make laws or at least take steps that must remain in effect until the next chapter."Naz does not place restrictions on these two principles. He gives a reference to the Dictionary of Canon Law which confirms the history of religious families in the Church through the centuries.

3) Conclusion absolutely clear:

Of the supreme authority of the SSPX and a chapter must be held to address the issue of a possible imminent agreement with Rome.

The text box is checked and approved by an official of the SSPX.

Tradition gives this principle which can be summarized thus: "A General Chapter has supreme powers in a society of law of the Church. Therefore it has the powers and the grave duty to elect or to remove any person of authority as required by the common good and to verify and sanction fidelity to the founder, to the Rule, the Constitutions and Statutes of the General Chapters past".

7th "Mortalium Animos"

An agreement of "SSPX with Rome without conversion" is entirely under the doctrine of Vatican II, which advocates a "ministry of unity with everyone without conversion" (Nostra Aetate, the "spirit of Assisi", the new ecumenism) condemned by "Mortalium Animos".

"We must be free of compromise both with regard to sedevacantists as well as those who absolutely want to be subjected to ecclesiastical authority.

We remain committed to our Lord Jesus Christ. But Vatican II was dethroned our Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord king, prince and ruler of the world. We can not change this course of action.

So when we get asked the question when will there be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome recrowns "Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can not agree with those who uncrown Our Lord. The day they recognize again our Lord King of peoples and nations, it is not us who shall have rejoined them , but they who come back to the Catholic Church in which we live."+ Marcel Lefebvre, Flavignv, December 1988

"This is a general apostasy, which is why we resist, but the Roman authorities would have us accept it. When I discussed with them in Rome, they wanted me to recognize religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I cannot. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani faithful to all the popes, and not this new doctrine which has always been condemned.

That's in what consists our opposition, and that is why we can not agree. It's not so much the question of the Mass, the Mass is precisely one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. ...The real fundamental opposition is the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Opportet regnare Illum," says St. Paul. Our Lord came to rule. They say no. And we say yes, with all the popes. Our Lord came not to be hidden inside houses without coming outside. Why the missionaries, of whom so many were slaughtered? To preach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. Then the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they did not hesitate to give their lives to continue to preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. And now we should do the opposite, saying to the Gentiles "your religion is good, preserve it, provided you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans! "This is why we can not get along with them, because we obey our Lord saying to the apostles:" Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth."

That is why we should not be surprised that we did not manage to make an agreement with Rome. It will not be possible until Rome returns to the faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of Catholic faith, clash as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, and as all popes clashed with liberalism. This is the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum